Wednesday, December 5, 2007

Zimmerman on Willow Creek (a guest post)

As soon as I read this article on Out of Ur, I was eager to hear what Barry Zimmerman would say about it. Barry always has a provacative take, and I recall him saying the same things that it took Willow Creek years of research to discover. Barry graciously agreed to post his thoughts on that article here.

Willow Creek has released the results of a multi-year study on the effectiveness of their programs and philosophy of ministry and their Pastor Bill Hybels himself has called the results "ground breaking," "earth shaking" and "mind blowing."

Here are some more of Hybles comments:

"Some of the stuff that we have put millions of dollars into thinking it would really help our people grow and develop spiritually, when the data actually came back it wasn't helping people that much. Other things that we didn't put that much money into and didn't put much staff against is stuff our people are crying out for. We made a mistake. What we should have done when people crossed the line of faith and become Christians, we should have started telling people and teaching people that they have to take responsibility to become 'self feeders.' We should have gotten people, taught people, how to read their Bible between services, how to do the spiritual practices much more aggressively on their own."


I want to start by saying I truly believe Hybels and the whole "seeker-sensitive" movement had great intentions. Unfortunately, good intentions without good theology and biblical practices can produce, as evidenced here, unintentional results.

The key to the "seeker-sensitive" failures is found in Hybels statement "…we should have started telling people and teaching people that they have to take responsibility to become 'self feeders.' So my follow up question is, "Why didn't you?" I think it's because they found it took much less effort to build a church than to disciple Christians and fell into the trap of following the route of least resistance.

I remember speaking with a full-time worship minister at a congregation of about 250 about how he fills his time seeing as my responsibilities in a congregation of 350 include worship and it only takes up about 40% of my week’s efforts. After hearing about the amount of time he spent preparing videos, special effects, slideshows, musical numbers, "creative" experiences, etc. I asked how his congregation's efforts at education and small groups were going. The answer? "We'll we had to cancel Sunday School to do our second service and we're hoping to get small groups going."

A question I have often asked people in large, quickly growing churches, that have added more services at the expense of education and small groups is, "If I could guarantee you deeper spiritual growth and a great small group ministry would you be willing to cancel one or more of your services and or risk slowing your growth?" I've yet to find someone in this situation who will simply answer, "Yes." Most simply state they want to do both yet have been unable to give an objective concrete example of a church that has accomplished that. Ironically, they've often tried to use Willow Creek as their example.

I believe what happened was that as seeker-sensitive methods were put into place, crowds were drawn in numbers not seen in years. And the inevitable question was asked, "How do we keep this going?" It's exciting to see more and more new faces, seeing a building fill to capacity, adding services, adding new programs, and having a community talk about your church. The staff that is seen as being a part of the process is seen as successful in the eyes of their peers. I know as our congregation has experienced some of the most explosive growth in its history the first question that tends to get asked is, "How do we keep this going?" It's the wrong question. It's also a possibly spiritually crippling question.

How do you keep it going? Well as far as I've seen churches try, you eliminate programs that aren't drawing big numbers for programs that do. You eliminate Sunday School and you add Worship Services. You get rid of small home groups and you add "felt need" seminars. You wait on hiring that Christian Ed staff member and you add a Worship minister and build a bigger sanctuary. You spend 95% of your time planning services and try to get small groups going with the remaining 5%. You go for the things that "keep it going" bigger and faster. The result? You keep numerical growth going at the expense of the spiritual growth of a large number of individuals.

I believe the more vital question to ask as a congregation begins to grow numerically, no matter the methods, is, "How do we disciple all these new faces?" To answer that question we need to emphasize and put more resources into beefing up our educational and small group ministries. We need to take time to purposely get these people into community. We need staff that are willing to invest their time into individuals even at the perceived expense to the crowd. We need people as committed to developing solid theology as to attending this years Christmas show. We need to understand it's most likely lives will truly be changed by an extra 40 hours poured into small group planning than getting the right video and logos together for the next sermon series.

The problem is this most likely won't happen at the same rate as you can gather a crowd or draw as much attention and accolades. The answers to this question won't get your church as much attention. The answers to the question might necessitate taking same resources, both financial and staff/time, from your "big draw" programs and into things like teacher training, new member assimilation, and mentoring. It might mean that 3 rd Sunday Service that draws 300 people may need to be replaced by an education time that only draws 100 at first. It might mean that in order to disciple well your growth rate dips.

Jesus understood if the Church was going to make it into the future He needed to focus on discipling a small group even at the expense of a bigger crowd. It wasn't the crowd that was destined to carry the torch but a handful of committed and well taught disciples. It was this small group that was key to 3000 coming forward at the first Church service not the 5000 that had been fed on the hillside.

So when it is all said and done it is not the seeker-sensitive mindset that has failed. It is a definite proven tool to draw people in. It was the question that was asked afterward that led to failure. It's time to realize that disicpling these seekers is as important, if not more important, than simply adding them to our numbers. There is a need for a more holistic view of what successful growth looks like. As Willow Creek has shown, the world will not be changed by church goers, so it's time to get back to the slow hard work of going and discipling and teaching.

After all, that is what we've been commissioned to do.

15 comments:

Sam said...

First off, you have addressed a problem that exists in many churches, not just Mega- and Seeker Sensitive churches. Church members don't need to be experts in apologetics, but it would help to understand just what God is trying to accomplish through this church/kingdom thing. Well done.

Secondly, what role do you see outreach playing into discipling? You seem to focus mostly on "classroom type" education. Is not experiencing loving one another just as important to knowing that we are commanded to do so? I don't think you can have one without the other (education without practice), so I would be interested to hear how you integrate the two.

Finally, I expected you to hammer Seeker Sensitive services and was surprised that you did not. I have long questioned the validity of them, because it seems to put things out of order. I believe most people get introduced to Christ through personal relationships, then get plugged into a church once they see their need to worship their Creator. The Willow Creek Model is quite different. So, though you say the model has not failed, seemingly the model is inherently flawed and has little chance of succeeding.I would be interested in your thoughts about that as well.

Regan Clem said...

Good thoughts.

Here is a little twist.

If I could guarantee you deeper spiritual growth and a great small group ministry would you be willing to cancel your services and or risk slowing your growth?

Barry said...

"First off, you have addressed a problem that exists in many churches"
True but it becomes more pronounced and replicated in the mega-church.

"Secondly, what role do you see outreach playing into discipling?"
I think in our culture the Sunday Morning service plays a big part in this which is why I don't completely throw out a seeker-sensitive method. However,one-to-one evangelism will always be core.

"If I could guarantee you deeper spiritual growth and a great small group ministry would you be willing to cancel your services and or risk slowing your growth?"
No, because I believe the corporate gathering is an vital part of the Church that offers things a small group alone can't provide in our context(sharing of resources, evangelism to community, pooling of gifts, public presence, accountability, etc). It plays into the other comment that "most people get introduced to Christ through personal relationships". I don't think it needs to be an either/or situation. Individuals and a community both play parts in introducing people to Christ. A whole lot of people in our culture first come into contact with other christians through a church service.
BAZ

Regan Clem said...

I think you just gave a good argument for the existence of "seeker services."

Regan Clem said...

I should have been more thorough in my reply.

You stated that the service provides "sharing of resources, evangelism to community, pooling of gifts, public presence, accountability, etc."

The only ones of those that the service would be better on doing than just small groups would be public presence. It might be better in evangelism to the community, but it would all depend on what one considers evangelism and what we are evangelizing them to.

Barry said...

Way to introduce the word "better" to the conversation. I never used it. I specifically said it isn't either/or. They compliment each other. But, at some size (too small or big) both can become inherently flawed.

Regan Clem said...

So there is no "better"? Is "better" a bad word?

What evidence do you have that small is inherently flawed? At what point is small flawed?

Regan Clem said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Regan Clem said...

And you might not use the word "better" and use the politically correct "either/or" instead, but your whole argument it that is not an "either/or." It is that there is a medium size that is better. Whether you use the word or not, it does seem to be what you are saying. You can correct me if I am understanding you wrongly.

Barry said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Barry said...

Medium size (subjective term I know, I'd say 300-800) allows for the benefits of both without the inherent weaknesses of either.
"The only ones of those that the service would be better on doing than just small groups would be public presence." Your use of "better" seemed to imply exclusivity.

Regan Clem said...

Your use of "medium size" implies exclusivity to me. But I do not think there is anything wrong with exclusivity. We should all be doing what we think is the best way for church to be done.

Here I say that am I not involved in the church model I believe is most effective. So I am a hypocrite.

Barry said...

"We should all be doing what we think is the best way for church to be done."
We should all be doing what IS the best way for church to be done. We find that out, in part, by simply looking at the fruit of different congregations.
Maybe. I'll have to think about my own comments here. But for now I stick by them :)

shannoncaroland said...

Thanks, Barry. And if you ever have something else to share, please let me know.

Commish said...

Ah, fond memories of glccalumni.